meaningless philosophical discussion this strikes at the heart of our constitutional forum of government. on march 19, completely without congressional authorization, the president ordered an unprovoked attack against another country. mr. mcclintock: in so doing herb crossed a very bright constitutional line, placed there specifically to prevent so momentous and fatal a question as war from being made by a single individual. the american founders were explicit on this poincht. for centuries, european monarchs plunged their nations into bloody and debilitating wars on whim and the founders wanned to protech the american republic from that fate. james madison explained why in this passage in a letter to hamilton. he said in no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confines the question of war or peace to the legislature

and not to the executive department. the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man. war is, in fact, the true nurse of executiving a ran diesment. in a rar of physical forces to be created and it is the executive will which is to direct it. in war, the public treasure is to be unlocked and it's the executive hand which is to defense them. in war, the honors are to be multiplied and it is executive of patronage which they are to be enjoyed. those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things be proper or safe judges whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded, unquote. the president has tried to justify this act in a variety of ways. that bombing another country is not really an act of war. that there wasn't time to consult congress, though more

than enough time to consult the united nations security council, or that it was a humanitarian act. mr. speaker, never was there a greater provocation or clearer moral justification for war than the japanese attack on pearl harbor. never was there a more activist president than franklin roosevelt. yet within 24 hours of that attack, president roosevelt appeared before a joint session of congress in this very hall. he clearly recognized that as commander in chief, his authority only extended to ordering "that all measures be taken for our defense." he recognized that under the constitution, anything more, even in this most historic i tack required an act of congress, which he sought and obtained. the unprovoked attack on libya was not authorized by this congress and it's accordingly unconstitutional and illegal. indeed, two weeks ago, the house considered a resolution authorizing a war with libya,

and it rejected that measure by nearly a 3-1 margin. it then considered a second measure to authorize acts of war against libya just short of actual combat, including refueling tankers on their way to targets, the identification and selection of targets, operational support, operational planning. it rejected that measure as well. the precedent being established right now by the president's deliberate defiance of the constitution and the clear will of the congress has profound implications for our nation's future. if this act is allowed to stand unchallenged, it means that the checks and balances painstakingly built into the constitution on the supreme question of war and peace have been rendered meaningless. weeks ago, the house voted to deny authorization for the use of funds for the war on libya effective october 1. this amendment simply follows

through on that decision in the actual appropriations act. frankly, we need to do much more than this. increasing the debt limit, must be to assure that no funds either borrowed or raised must be used to continue to support this illegal act. we need to remember a war once started cannot always be turned off by an appropriations act. once we've attacked another country without provocation, we've created and agreed belligerent that has pursued that war regardless of what the congress later decides. that's why this president is so dangerous. that's why the president's actions are so devastating to our very form of government, and that's why we need to speak clearly and unequivocally through measures like that offered by the gentleman -- gentlemen from michigan and ohio today. with that, i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise?

the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the amash-kucinich amendment, and i'm proud to be a co-sponsor. at the same time, call on other members to join us on the floor right now for this important debate. mr. chairman, i've been struck in recent days by the profound lack of seriousness in washington when it comes to confronting this illegal war we're fighting in libya. last week at a news conference, the president dismissed congressional concerns about war powers authority in his libya policy, and i quote him, he said all kinds of noise about process. and at the same time, the u.s. senate essentially punted on the issue earlier this week, pulling the plug on an important debate that the country needs because a few republican senators

complained that they canceled recess only to deal with the debt ceiling and they were not going to discuss libya. but perhaps it was right here in the house that we've seen the most incoherence on libya. right before we adjourned almost two weeks ago, this body voted against authorizing the use of force in libya, and then less than two hours later, the house voted to continue funding the war we had just refused to authorize. mr. chairman, congress has the power of the curse, and we must be prepared to use it. we must use this opportunity to send a powerful message. a vote of no confidence in this libya policy will prove that we do not and will not write another check for a war that americans don't want and a war that we did not authorize.

hostilities with libya, and let's be frank, these are hostilities, have not been going on -- have now been going on for more than 100 days with the costs climbing toward $1 billion, and that doesn't even include the moral costs and the costs of civilian lives. the people's money is too important and too precious, especially during this time of fiscal austerity. no one believes that cutting off libya alone is enough to make meaningful progress on deficit reduction. but i think it's outrageous that we're talking about cuts in social security benefits, and those cuts are on the table, while we're discussing the debt ceiling negotiations while we continue to throw money at not one, not two, but three wars. a brown university study concludes that when it's all

said and done, iraq and afghanistan will suck the treasury dry to the tune of at least $3.7 trillion. enough already. mr. chairman, the pentagon is like that teenager. you keep giving the kid the keys to the car and he keeps crashing it. it's time we cut him off. we must draw the line and we must draw it here. no more money for libya. no more continuance in libyan hostilities. i urge my colleagues, support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: the gentleman says we have gone to war in the name of

humanity. in other words, the president's war in libya is so that we can preserve humanity in libya. in the history of peoples, as the gentleman from california has pointed out, in the histories of countries, it has always been the king, the dictator, the tyrant, the chief, the leader that has sent that particular country to war. so when our ancestors got together and they formed a new and perfect union, they decided it would not be the leader, which we call the president, it would be the people that would decide if we went to war. and they gave that power to the congress of the united states. and only congress can declare war. not the president. but this is the president's war. and the president, in my opinion, is in violation of the constitution. he has led america to our third war. whether or not the war powers resolution is constitutional or

not, we can debate that. but he's in violation of it too because we're still engaged in war, whether you call it hostilities or not, some say it's not hostile. you being one of the recipients of those cruise missiles in libya, you might think that's a hostile environment toward you. but this country is spending money on a third war and it is unconstitutional. our ancestors had comments about the leader, the king leading us into war. the writer of the constitution, when it wrote a letter to thomas jefferson, he said the constitution supposes what history and government have always demonstrated. that is the executive branch most interested in war and most prone it to. it is with study care vested this question in this country of war in the legislative body. the first commander in chief, the first president of the united states george washington

said the constitution vests the power of declaring war with congress. therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until they have deliberated upon that subject and congress has authorized such a measure. it is our history. it is our heritage. it is our constitution. it is our principle that congress must declare war. congress must be engaged in war. and in my opinion, the president has violated that constitution. he has violated the law of the land and the war powers h.res. luge, and it is congress' duty now, it is our turn, it is our responsibility to weigh in on this war and stop money from going to this war. where the president got the $700 million that have already been spent on this war, we don't know. we just want to make sure no more money is spent on this unconstitutional action.

you know, gaddafi is a tyrant, an outlaw. there are a lot of bad guys in the world, mr. chairman, and it's now the policy of the president to pick out the ones he does not like and start blowing up that country in the name of humanity? we don't know. so congress must resume, regain its rightful authority and role and make sure we do not fund the president's little war or any other future wars without congressional approval. mr. chairman, instead of spending money blowing up libya, we ought to spend that money building united states, in rebuilding america and not destroying somebody else's country and being involved in somebody else's civil war. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, we should not turn our backs on the libyan people. i want to remind my colleagues that nato's campaign in libya has saved countless lives. our actions and those of nato were the only thing that stopped gaddafi from committing unspeakable crimes against humanity. mr. ellison: in fact, when the united states and nato intervened, gaddafi was on the footsteps of misrata and threatening to kill without mercy. gaddafi's forces were on the brink of benghazi hours before nato operation began. gaddafi literally said that he would kill people with "no mercy, no pity." he said he would go "house by house and room by room." those are the words of a ruthless killer, and we had to do something, and i'm glad that we did. constituents in my district

whose roots come from libya have made it clear to me that they want me to stand together with humanity, stand together with honorable people. but let me be clear, this is not iraq, and this will not be the iraq war. we did not unilaterally declare war on another country. on the contrary, our actions with the international community, sanctioned by the united nations, the arab league, and most importantly, the libya people themselves. our role is limited and constrained. no boots on the ground. we essentially are helping to supply and refuel and add surveillance. do we want to signal to other murderous dictators while the people are standing up for democracy that they have a free hand to slaughter their public? i hope not. i say listen to regular libyans on the street today. they want more nato involvement, not less.

they want the united states to remain involved. if we pull out now, the nato coalition could fall apart and tens of thousands of refugees fleeing gaddafi's wrath will jeopardize the fragile operations. this issue has regional implications. it's not limited to libya alone. as my constituents know and my legislative record reflects, i was adamantly against the iraq war and i am adamantly in favor of a faster withdrawal from afghanistan. in fact, i'm almost always against the use of the military option. seldom is the right course in my opinion. seldom doesn't mean always. darfur. rwanda. all warranted our engagement as libya does today. we made it to the balkans, but we didn't make it to darfur or rwanda.

and literally millions of people died because of that. at the same time, i cannot turn a blind eye to the slaughter of innocent people. i hope that the day will never come when i willig forethe cries of innocent people being murdered by a dictator or when i will cozy up to a murderous dictator. i cannot turn my back on people demanding the same freedoms we enjoy in america. i understand my colleagues' aversion to military conflict, i share itism understand their fear of mission creep, i share that. but i also understand when people are being murdered wholesale, being ethnically cleansed, the world, including the crites, cannot, must not stand back and watch. for the sake of the libyan people, i urge my colleagues to support this resolution authorizing the use of limited force. the chair: for what purpose

does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was planning to offer my own amendment which would hold the president accountable to the war pow evers act with regard to its operation in lib yasm my intention was to expose the president's clear violation of this important law. however, i was concerned that some wording could have raised a point of order. that being said, i'm proud to co-sponsor mr. kucinich's important amendment that will completely cut off funds for this illegal war. mr. chairman, on march 19, president obama announced he had authorized u.s. military forces to conduct operations in lib yasm unfortunately the president did -- in libya. unfortunately the president did this without receiving authorization from congress, even though he made sure to get the u.n.'s approval. by not being open and honest with congress, he left members

in the dark and unsure what our ultimate mission was. to this day, the president hasn't come to congress to ask for formal approval. initially, when the president committed our military operations in libya, he said it would be days, not months. now we're definitely talking months because it was a little over a week. we've been engaged in operations in libya for nearly four months. an effort to escape his responsibility to this day, the president has refused to acknowledge that the u.s. is engaged in hostilities in libya. that being said, those in the pentagon seem to agree with the president -- or disagree with the president on this issue. while the president has turned a blind eye to truth, the department of defense has decided to award imminent danger pay for service members who fly over libya and those who serve on ships won 110 nauticalle miles of the shore. as of june 3, 93% of the cruise

missiles, 66% of the personnel, 50% of the ships and 50% of the planes using -- used in nato operations against libya were by the united states of america. mr. nugent: mr. chairman, firing a cruise missile at libya qualifies as hostility. in early june, it was estimated that libya was costing the american taxpayers over $700 million. i have three sons currently in the military and i'll support our troops no matter where the president sends them. however,ky not support obama's decision to commit our military forces operations without the required congressional authorization. that's why i co-sponsored this amendment. the 2012 department of defense appropriation bill, kucinich amendment. with that, ski all my colleagues, all members, to come down here on the house floor and express support for this important amendment to

reclaim our constitution, to reclaim the validity of this congress as it relates to committing troops to war. mr. speaker, i support this amendment, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: mr. chairman, i believe this is an important debate in the house today as we appropriately authorize congressional oversight in the use of force an the cost associated with our presence in libya. the president's initial commitment to support the international effort was appropriate and certainly within his power as commander in chief. in march, the president clearly outlined the rationale for involvement in the military action.

now, if i were advising the president, i would have said, send up a resolution and get approval from the house and the senate. there's no question that would have been the pevered course of action. the u.s. effort was undertaken in concert with the broad coalition of nations and it followed a resolution adopted in the united nations security council authorizing all necessary measures to protect libyan civilians attempting to overthough the -- overthrow the oppressive -- oppressive regime of gaddafi. the gaddafi administration's response was to use force and the brutal measures prompted the international outcry and the united nations action. while the direct u.s. leadership of this effort lasted a brief time, u.s. forces remain engaged in the nato operation. when i hear my colleagues speak in favor of aban tong this

cause, i think it's important to reflect on the fundamental reason why we're concerned here. this is the same individual, muammar ka due fee, who had been planning terrorist actions against the united states for decades. this is the same terrorist leader against whom president ronald reagan authorized a military strike in 1986 and he didn't ask congress for approval. following the bombing in berlin and definitive proof of ka draw feese involvement in other terrorist activity. at that time, president reagan publicly denounced gaddafi as the mad dog of the middle east who espoused the goal of world revolution. mr. speaker, i can only wonder what ronald reagan would say today about those who would propose immediate withdrawal of u.s. assistance to the broad coalition of nations attempting the fin -- to finish the job that president reagan started. now just to make it clear, the administration, when they set up their reports under the

boehner amendment, i believe, they did list out the military costs for the operation. daily operations up to june 3 were $313.7 million. mue anythings, $398.3 million. tpwhrobal lift and sustain, $1.6 million. the subtotal for military operations was $713.6 million. and the drawdown of supplies $1.3 million. humanitarian assistance $ million for a total of $715.9 million. munitions come out of of the munitions fund, daily operations come out of o.e.m. funds for the army and navy and the estimate by september 30, 2011 is that daily operations will total $618 million, munitions $450 million, global lift and sustain $10 million for a total of $1,678,000 i

think that is a pretty clear indication. the chairman, our chairman is absolutely correct, they have not asked for a supplemental here. they're going to use existing funds that we have already appropriated to take care of this operation. of course we'd all like to see this thing resolved as quickly as possible and a political settlement may be possible. but i think it would be wrong to undermine the president and our country and our involvement with nato and the u.n. and with our arab allies on this subject. and i urge a no vote on the amash kucinich amendment. -- on the amash-kucinich amendment. i yield pack my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does anyone seek recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. dicks: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by ms. lee of california. amendment by mr. garamendi of california. amendment by mr. nadler of new york. amendment number 1 by mr. poe of texas. amendment number 2 by ms. lee of california.

amendment number 41 by ms. -- mr. cohen of tennessee. amendment by mr. cicilline of rhode island. amendment by mr. cohen of tennessee. amendment number 2 by mr. poe of texas. amendment number 1 by ms. mccollum from minnesota. amendment number 2 by ms. mccollum of minnesota. amendment number 13 by mr. cole of oklahoma. amendment by mr. amash of michigan. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for the second through 11th vote. the final two votes will be five minute votes. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes

prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 1, offered by ms. lee of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this question --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are 322, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment from the gentleman from california, mr. jare men deon which further proceed wrgs postponed on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. 24e clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. lech lecked. -- members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute. -- this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this question, the yeas are 133, the nays are 295. the amendment is nopt adopted. -- is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a rored vote will rise and be counted. 5 sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is order. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this question, the yeas are 175, the nays are -- are 240, the amendment is

not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a railroaded -- recorded vote on amendment number one, ordered by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 1 offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: the arored vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded rote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this yes, the eyes are 131, the no's are 297, and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the no's prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 2 offered by ms. lee of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device and this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute,

inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this question, the ayes are 114 and the no's are 314. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 41 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, on which further proceedings were postponed and prevails by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 41 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cohen of

tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device and this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this question, the yeas are 210, the nays are 217, and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from roll island, on which further proceedings were postponed and by which the no's prevail by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sicily of rhode island. the chair: the clerk will redesignate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sis leeny of rhode island. the chair: a record vote has been requested. those in support of a request for a recorded vote will rise and be accounted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device, and this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the no's prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device and this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 119, the noes are 306 and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 offered by the gentleman from tennessee -- texas, mr. poe, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 2 offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise

and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 140, the nays are 285. the amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 offered by the gentleman from minnesota -- the gentlelady from minnesota, ms. mccollum, on which further proceedings were postpone and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 1 offered by ms. mccollum of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. -- a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 226 and the noes are 201 and the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 offered by the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. mccollum, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 2 offered by ms. mccollum of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 165 --

the chair: for this question, the ayes are 167 and the nays are 260. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 13 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cole of oklahoma. the chair: the recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. and this will be a five-minute vote. clsh

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 225, the nays are 201. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. amichigan, on which further

proceedings were postponed and by which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. amash of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, the recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 199, the nays are 229. the amendment is not adopted. the chair will be in order. we're returning to order, regular order. please remove your conversations from the house floor. please remove your conversations from the floor. regular order, please.

for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered pli -- by mr. ridgele of virginia. -- mr. rigell of virginia. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. please remove all your conversations off the house floor. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. rigell: mr. chairman, each men of this body has the duty to protect the separation of powers

that were so wisely wove noon our constitution by our founding fathers. and which forms the very foundation of how we govern this great nation. an agriegious ongoing breach of the separation of powers is taking place at this very hour. mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the chair respectfully requests you move your conversations off the house floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. rigell: mr. chairman, an agriegious ongoing breach of the separation of powers is taking place at this very hour. specifically the use of a power given only to congress, that founded in article 1, section 8 of the constitution. only congress can declare war. known initially aspiration odyssey dawn and now aspiration unified protector, military intervention easily rising to the definition of wars being -- war is being carried out in

libya. it's being carried out with the bravery, exceptional professionalism and commitment to victory that define our fellow americans who serve in our armed forces and before i address the mission itself, i first applaud their willingness to sacrifice so much for their fellow americans. mr. chairman, a careful review of the president's case for support of his actions in libya leaves me to this sobering and firm conclusion. the president as i use of force in libya is unwise and it is unconstitutional. the level of military resources being employed both in personnel and equipment, the amount of ordinance delivered and the damage it inflicts constitute acts of war. at the very minimum they meet the definition of hostilities under the war powers resolution. yet not one of the three criteria delineated in the war powers resolution that would justify this action has been met. there's been no declaration of war, there's been no statutory

authority issued, there's been no evidence of an attack on american forces was eminent or had occurred. now, if a tomahawk missile was launched into any american city, whether los angeles, chicago or my home city of virginia beach, would that not meet our definition of hostilities? absolutely it would. now, mr. chairman, this is the pivotal issue. the military force being directed toward libya easily triggers the definition of hostilities. the legal opinion upon which the administration stakes its legitimacy of its actions in libya is thinner pan the paper on which it's written. it's not based on law but something he refers to as the national interest, a term that the president in his wisdom believes he can solely define himself. his office of legal council concluded that, i quote, president obama could rely on

his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in libya which were limited in their nature, scope and duration. listen carefully here, without prior congressional authorization, unquote. disregarding the legal opinions of the pentagon's general council and the acting head of the justice department's office of legal council, both of whom told the white house that they believed that the military operations in libya amounted to hostilities, the president plowed ahead and, mr. chairman, a president's opinion of the war powers resolution does not negate its authority. required by law there is no check, there is no balance. you know, even the broadest interpretation of article 1 section 8 cannot corral the interpretation held by the president of his unilateral right to engage u.s. forces in combat. mr. chairman, it is irreconcilable with our constitution. the president has taken america into a war in the midst of a financial crisis and yet another

muslim nation in pursuit of a military objective that is ambiguous and constantly morphing. though i disagree with the president's actions in libya, i stand here today not motivated by partisanship. if i woke up tomorrow morning and learned that the president had taken action to defend this great country from imminent danger and attack, i would be the first to stand next to him and affirm his action. if america should go to war it must be done so in a very careful, deliberative manner and as a last measure, it must be done so in way that's fully consistent with our constitution. that is not the case here. my amendment is necessary because only by using the power of the purse can we end an unwise war and meet our duty, our high duty to preserve the separation of powers. now is the time to act. and i respectfully ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this amendment and i yield back

the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i rise in opposition today to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: on march 19, 2011, coalition forces launched operation odyssey dawn to enforce u.n. security resolution 1973, to protect the libyan people from the brutal regime of muammar gaddafi. operation odyssey dawn ended on march 31, 2011, and transitioned to the nato-led operation unified protector which continues today. operation odyssey dawn has ceased operations, therefore part of this amendment is no longer relevant. however, the nato-led mission to defeat gaddafi and protect the people of libya was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations including the arab league and it followed resolutions adopted in the united nations security council authorizing all necessary

measures. the amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. i believe this could materially harm our relationship with nato allies from whom we will undoubtedly require support in the future and have been our partners since 1949. we should let the mission -- we should let the mission with our nato allies continue so we can defeat gaddafi and protect the libyan people. i urge all my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. dicks: i yield back. the chair: no further requests. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. rigell: recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from virginia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from the district of columbia rise. ms. norton: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 78 printed in the congressional record. the chair: the gentlelady from d.c. ms. norton: mr. speaker, more than 25 years ago congress charged the defense department to -- the chair: the gentlelady will suspend. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. norton -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. norton of the district of columnia. the at the end of the bill, insert the following -- ms. norton: mr. speaker. i ask to waive the reading of the bill. the chair: without objection.

>> mr. chairman, i object. the chair: the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, the amount otherwise made available by this act will -- for operation and maintenance, environmental restoration, formally used defensewise is hereby reduced and increased by $1 million. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. norton: mr. speaker, more than 25 years ago the congress charged the defense department to identify and then clean up and remediate properties which the department had owned or at least in order to test -- or leased in order to test chemical munitions. congress did so because these munitions had left hazardous substances related to the work of the department, there are more than 2,000 such sites in

nearly every state, all the territories and in the district of columbia. my concern is with the areas of those sites in congested residential parts of our country where there may be dense populations. and there are formerly used defense sites. a classic case, perhaps i'm sure not the only one but perhaps the most important, was the world war i chemical weapons site for the united states of america. it happened to have been right in northwest washington, d.c., as a portion of what is now american university and its surrounding neighborhood known as spring valley. the army is making good on its duty to clean up these sites, these formerly used defense sites.

including the site in the district of columbia. but we have no information on the health effects of these leftover chemical munitions. they are found in people's back and front yards, they have been found at least here in people's gardens, whole houses as it turns out are know -- out were knowingly built on this debris, garages, the site here in the district of columbia was found by accident by utility contractor who was digging into a trench. the neighborhood had no knowledge, the city had no knowledge of this -- these leftover munitions. this land was used for -- in this case and again i stress that there are surely other sites around the united states and cite this case as an example.

mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentlelady is corrected. the committee will be in order. please remove all conversations. ms. norton: this land in the district of columbia was leased and used for return and development and testing of chemical explosives and it was able to do so in the city because there wasn't any local government, there wasn't any home rule and i guess since it was run by the federal government, they could make a site, a testing site, a munitions testing site, hundreds of pounds of chemical agents and explosives were developed and released throughout the environment. we have found in this city and in the spring valley sections of the city off and on projectiles,

mustard gas projectiles, other kinds of chemical toxic waste left over from undetonated ordinances. when world war, i i was over, they simply used the -- world war i was over, they simply used the site where they were doing of the testing as a dump site. they buried these munitions right where they were testing. at the time now that was the way in which you disposed of these munitions at the time. in the area that is a classic case, 1,200 private homes, 30 embassies and foreign properties, a hospital, wesley seminary, other metropolitan areas have former used defense sites as well, spring valley may be the prime target because it is such a well established

neighborhood where chemical agents and munitions were once used. the amendment requires the secretary to allocate $1 million to zuddy the human health effects -- study the human health effects of leftover munitions in residential congested areas, just as the department of defense, then the army have acknowledged their obligation to clean up and remove hazardous substances, especially munitions that have been left behind through their own testing, they also have the obligation to investigate whether there are any remaining health effects and that is all we are asking, that there be a study as to whether there are any remaining health effects from this leftover munitions site from world war i and other sites like it in residential congested areas.

the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise in >> i move to strike the last word and rise knopp sigs. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i would like to commend the gentlewoman for her work to clean up this part of the district of columbia. our bill provides $276.5 million in the environmental restoration account, formerly the used defense site account. the department has the authority to provide funding to those projects and teams of the highest priority and pose the greatest risk to environmental and human health. if the department believes the funding -- that funding such a study as the gentlewoman from the district of columbia suggests is important, the department has the ability to do so for these -- to do so. for these reasons, we oppose the amendment. >> would the gentleman yields? mr. frelinghuysen: i'd be happy

to yield. >> i also appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment and i will work with you -- mr. dicks: i will work with you to see if we can talk to the military about using environmental restoration funds if your amendment doesn't succeed. the chair: the gentleman yields back? the question son the amendment offered by the gentlelady from d.c. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i would like to ask the gentleman from florida, mr. chairman to engage in a colloquy on the need for

traumatic brain injury funding for post acute guidelines for our returning troops. mr. chairman, it is my understanding that medical treatment guidelines for post-acute rehabilitation of moderate and severe t.b.i. does not exist today. mr. pascrell: recognizing this, mr. platts of pennsylvania, ms. giffords from arizona, including an amendment in the national defense authorization for fiscal year 2012. it would require the department of defense to implement post acute treatment guidelines for traumatic brain injury this provision was supported by the co-chairs of the brain injury task force, myself, mr. platts, bipartisan, it is our hope that the uniform services university of the health sciences will be able to begin the project as soon as possible.

over the year the task force has addressed many gaps for our servicemens. i yield now to mr. platts of pennsylvania. mr. platts: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as co-chair of the traumatic brain injury task force, i'm honored to join with the gentleman from new jersey in support of implementing post-acute treatment guidelines . before 2007, there was no funds in the budget for traumatic brain injury treatments but with the dedicated efforts of chairman young and the other members of the appropriations committee, through their efforts, we were not only table provide funding but more importantly to sustain a significant level of funding over the past number of years. as we continue to address new gaps for our service members suffering t.b.i.'s in this 2012 authorization bill that was passed in committee and moving forward through the process, we requested $1 million to fund

these post-acute guidelines that the gentleman from new jersey has referenced. it's our understanding that while t.b.i. funding the defense appropriation bills is not separated by purpose, it's our understanding that the department uses the overall funding for traumatic brain injury for authorized purposes. is our understanding correct, mr. chairman? >> would the gentleman yields? >> i'd be honored to yield. >> the gentleman is correct. the bill has provided an additional $125 million for t.b.i. research, above the budget request of $415 million. mr. young: it's been a long-standing policy that this funding is provided at the discretion of the department. historically this subcommittee has provided increased funding for t.b.i. research but refrained from directing how that money should be spent

allowing the department to prioritize how best to use that funding for authorized purposes. the chair: reclaiming my time, i would yield back to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pascrell: that should be what the authorizeation bill pass with this provision on post-acute demrines that the department then has the needed amount of $1 million to really accomplish this objective which we have. mr. chairman, i would ask and request, as usual, your deepest cooperation and no one has done more for our troops than you. >> would the yell yield? mr. pascrell: i would. mr. wrung: i say to the gentleman, he is correct. should the provision be carried on the final authorization bill, then the department would have sufficient resources to fund the provisions should they decide to based on this appropriations bill.

mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back to mr. platts of pennsylvania. mr. platts: thank you for yielding. i would like to add my words of great thanks to chairman young who has been a great lead for the doing right by our brave men and women in uniform especially those who have suffered traumatic brain injury. we are indebted to you and your staff for your great leadershipism yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 61 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, what sets the united states apart from many other countries that have lots of resources are our values and

that we are a nation of laws. we may not agree with all of our laws but they are the laws of our land and not even the president can decide which laws to enforce and which not to enforce. yet this administration has said it will not enforce the defense of marriage act. the department of defense maintains that the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, does not directly challenge the defense of marriage act which protects the rights of individual states to define marriage as that between a man and woman. on february, 2011, attorney general eric holder announced it would not longer enforce the defense of marriage act. the house of representatives has said it will continue to defend that along with other rules of our country. my amendment would state that

it's the opinion of the house that the defense of marriage act should be enforced. on april 13, 2011, the office of the navy chief of navy chaplains, in a memo titled, quote, revision of chaplain corps tyre 1 training directed that train -- tier 1 training directed that training be revised to incorporate same-sex marriage in states where same-sex marriages are reck thesed thises a change to a statute that said same-sex marriages are not recognized. they said, if it is conducted

in the accordance with the laws of the state and if the chaplain is otherwise certified to efficient. this call into question the intent of the department of defense with regard to compliance with existing federal law under the defense of may recall act. congress should establish policy guidance on this issue that will cover numerous contingencies and unexpected situations in the future. it is irresponsible for the department of defense to dismiss all concerns about issues involving marriage status by pointing to the existence of the defense of marminge act. there's no con tin yhency plan to address this issue should the federal courts invalidate the defense of mamplee act. in fact, the administration is inviding that very possibility. federal court orders could overturn policies of the department of defense which is not likely to resist or oppose directives that disregard the intent of the defense of marriage act. congress can and should enact a policymaking it clear that defense department funds should

not be used in ways that violate federal laws, including the defense of marriage act. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: issues such as the defense of marriage act represent policy questions not suited to appropriations bills. this amendment does not acress any specific funding matter addressed in the bill before the house. to the extent that this bill has any connection to the department of defense, i believe that such a policy issue is appropriately addressed within the domain of the house armed services committee. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. any further -- the gentleman from indiana. mr. burton: i ask unanimous

consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word? mr. burton: i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: i won't be redundant. i'll follow up on what my colleague, representative foxx, said in proposing this amendment for the two of us. this is merely a move to make sure that legislation that has already passed the defense of marriage act and in the authorization bill dealing with the department of defense coincides with the appropriation bill that we're talking about today. there's been some confusion in the department of defense about the -- on the -- in the facilities at these military bases that there could be marriages between two men or two women. the defense of marriage act and the authorization bill clearly

states that they -- that that cannot happen and will not happen because it would be a violation of the defense of marriage act which has passed this body. even though the administration has chosen not to be involved in this issue, i believe it's incumbent on the congress to make this issue very clear so that we don't have confusion on these military bases when we talk about same-sex marriages. so mr. speaker, or mr. chairman, i would like to submit for the record my comments but i think it is imperative that we make absolutely clear in both the appropriations bill and the authorization bill, as well as the defense of marriage act, what the law is, what it's intended to do, so that it's very clear to the military so they don't have any difficulty in making decisions on this particular issue. with that, i yield back the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? seeing no other people requesting time, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman from california is recognized. for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise engage mr. dicks in a colloquy regarding an important area of funding for department of defense. mr. berman: for more than a decade, the department of defense has funned programs to support established university programs that promote region -- region wide conferences and --

on arms control and related topic for arab, israeli, and other officials and experts. these programs serve an important national security objective. they have offer an alternative means of dialogue and engagement in an area of unparalleled significance to the united states. i know of one such program in los angeles and i urge the department to continue funning such programs. i'd be happy to yield to the ranking member for his thoughts on this issue. >> first of all, i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. dicks: i thank you, mr. berman, for your comments and agree that such programs to support university programs promoting middle east conferences and task force on arms control, regional security and other issues for arab-israeli -- for arab, israeli, and other officials are important and beneficial. i hope the dept of defense funds such programs accord demi

and i'll work with the gentleman to ensure that happens. mr. berman: i thank the gentleman and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from maine rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 64 printed in the congressional record offered pli by mr. michaud of mabe -- by mr. michaud of maine. the chair: the gentleman is now recognized for five minutes. mr. mitchell: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer an amendment to ensure that no funds in this bill are spend in -- spent in violation of the barry amendment. mr. michaud: the barry amendment requires d.o.d. to procure certain categories of products

from american manufacturing including food, fabric, stainless steel and certain tools. it was enacted to ensure that the united states troops wore military uniforms made in the u.s. and to ensure that u.s. troops were fed american-made food. the barry amendment has been on the books for 70 years, yet in recent years some in congress have tried to weaken it. at a time of 9% unemployment and when employment in the u.s. manufacturing sector is on the decline, it is more important than ever for congress to reiterate its support for existing law that promotes domestic procurement. i urge my colleagues to support american manufacturing and to promote american food and uniforms for our troops by voting for the michaud-kissel amendment and at this time i yield to mr. kissel the remainder of my time. mr. kissell: mr. chairman, i'd like to thank my colleague for

yielding to me and for 70 years, as my colleague pointed out, the barry amendment has served this nation well. it has given our fine military forces the best of american-made equipment and has guaranteed the american people opportunity to make that equipment. it is a matter of national security. and it should not be a matter as the intent of congress has been clear for 70 years, it should not be a matter for to us stand up and have to reaffirm this amendment but as my colleagues said, there has been efforts made to weaken the barry amendment, to get around the barry amendment and we simply want to remind the old folks involved that the barry amendment is the intent of congress, it has been the law for 70 years and we need to continue with that, funds that are being spent should be spent in total compliance with the barry amendment. with that i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman from maine yield?

>> i thank the gentleman for yielding and we're prepared to accept this amendment. mr. michaud: i thank the chairman very much. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. therefore the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maine. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. kissel of north carolina. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a

contract, memorandum of understanding or a cooperative agreement with or provide a loan or loan guarantee to any united states commercial air carrier if that contract, memorandum of understanding, cooperative agreement, loan or loan guarantee allows the air carrier to charge baggage fees to any member of the armed forces who is traveling on official military orders and is being deployed overseas or is returning from an overseas deployment. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. kissell: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this is a very simple to-the-point amendment. we heard recently about members of our armed services traveling on official military business being charged excess baggage fees by a commercial airlines here in the united states. this amendment would not make any funds available for entering into any contracts, mem ran dums of understanding, cooperative agreements, loans or loan guarantees with any united

states commercial airlines where that -- where those contracts, memorandums of understanding, cooperative agreements, loans or loan guarantees would allow for excessive baggage fees for any member of the armed services traveling on official military business. our folks when they're traveling and protecting our nation shouldn't have to worry about this and we as a nation shouldn't have to pay extra fees beyond the millions upon millions of dollars that we already pay to these airlines, this just should be businesses a usual and i encourage all my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back his time? mr. kissell: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise in support of this amendment. you know, our troops and their

families are being asked to make sacrifices -- sacrifice after sacrifice after sacrifice. we should be at a point of trying to make things better for them, make things easier for them and i would say that one of the things that we can do is to adopt the gentleman's amendment to at least give them some relief when they're coming back from the war that we sent them to without charging them extra money to get back home with their belongings. and i applaud the gentleman for offering this amendment and i rise in strong support. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? i too agree with the chairman. this is one of those situations where i think we have to step in and take action for our troops and this is a good amendment and i urge its adoption. the chair: does the gentleman from florida yield back?

the gentleman yields back. no further speakers. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the eam. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. eshoo of california. insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to enter into a contract with a cooperation or other business entity that does not disclose its political expenditures. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i

reserve a point of order on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise for the third time this year to call for a trans-- for transparency and disclosure in our system and throughout our government. this appropriation bill will spend billions, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars next year and a huge portion of it, a portion that's impossible to quantify, will go to contractors. some are small, others rank among the world's largest companies. and as we meet today, the work force of contractors in afghanistan is the same size as the work force of the uniformed personnel there and since 2005 we've spent approximately $12 billion on contractors in

afghanistan. and today there are more private contractors, i mean, listen up, everyone, there are more private contractors than uniformed personnel in iraq and we spent $112 billion on contractors in iraq since 2005. the federal government does business with thousands of contractors who receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money. they should be required to disclose their spending, their political spending and that's what my amendment will accomplish. in 2000 when we voted to pass -- in 2002 when we voted to pass the historic finance bill, most republicans voted no saying, we needed disclosure, not soft money restrictions. they said we needed to put spending out in the open and let the voters assess it.

today when the president proposes requiring contractors to simply disclose their spending and not to limit it, republicans are up in arms. they say it will politicize the contracting process. but when contractors can spend money in elections, the contracting process is already politicized. my amendment is modest. and it's simple. it will bring this information out into the open and let the public decide for themselves. the public deserves to know what happens with their tax money. mr. chairman, this is not a revolutionary idea. for the last 17 years the s.e.c. requires bond dealers to limit their campaign contributions to the officials in the cities that issue bonds. it requires them to disclose their contributions, providing

the public with transparency. the rule was challenged an upheld in court and my amendment reallied a meres to the same principle -- really adheres to the same principle. why would a little discloseure be better than a lot of disclosure? i agree with senator mcconnell. with public dollars come public responsibilities. disclosure would fulfill this responsibility. so i urge my colleagues to support this and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman from florida insist on his point of order? mr. young: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment. because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation under an appropriations bill. therefore violating clause 2 of rule 21. that rule states in pertinent

part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. this amendment requires a new determination and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any member wish to speak on the point of order? seeing none, the chair is ready to rule. the chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination of whether certain political contributions were disclosed. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained. and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. mulvaney of south carolina. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, the total amount of appropriations made available by this act is hereby reduced by $17,-- $17,192,000,000 not to be derived from amount appropriations made available by title 9. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. chairman. by way of brief summary this amendment would freeze the base department of defense funding at 2011 levels. it's refly $17 billion reduction or a 3% reduction over the bill that's currently before us. again, it takes it back to the 2011 levels that we passed just recently in h.r. 1 during the continuing resolution debate. this is not, mr. chairman, a new idea. it's not even my idea. the bipartisan reduction --

deficit reduction plan also proposed exactly this. freezing base defense spending at 2011 levels. during the budget debate, the one sub -- substantive bipartisan amendment that passed was an amendment that was a sense of the committee that said that defense spending needed to be on the table as we look at spending reductions for 2012. and most importantly the president's fiscal commission, the simpson-boles commission, also recommended exactly what this amendment does today. keeping defense spending at 2011 levels. especially in this area the simpson bowles commission is correct. i want to read from the report, every aspect of the discretionary budget must be scrutinized. no agency can be off limits and no program that spends too much or achieves too little can be spared. any serious attempt -- and i'll

say that again, any serious attempt to reduce the deficit will require deliberate, plan red duckses in both domestic and defense spending. personally, i'd like to think i'm serious about cutting our deficits. i hope i'm not alone. many of us have gone around back home and told people how serious we are. but how can we look them in the eye and tell them we're serious and then come in and plus up the base defense budget. admiral mullen himself said that with the increasing defense budget which is almost double other the last 10 years, it has not forced us, the defense department to make the hard trades. it hasn't forced us to prioritize. it hasn't forced us to do the analysis. we just received a budget committee memo today that said of the 92 major defense accusation programs, 69% of them are over budget. one in every five of them is

over budget by at least 50%. it's not right. it's not what our families are having to do, it's not what our states are having to do, it's not even what we are choosing to do in other areas -- areas of the budget. the defense department needs to make hard choices too. this amendment will not in any way limit our national defense capabilities. it will not put a single soldier at more risk. it simply holds defense spending exactly where we were three months ago when we approved the c.r. having been here about six months, there's one thing i've learned, being a freshman. for folks who are here for the first time, the message is this. talk is cheap. it's easy to go home and tell folks how important it is to cut spending, how serious we are about cutting spending but nothing sends the message that we are really serious about it like cutting spending on something that's important to us. it's easy to cut things we don't like. it is hard to cut things that are important to us.

defense spending is critically important to me and the folks of this nation and the folks of south carolina. but if we are going to send the message that we are really serious about cutting spending, then everything needs to be on the table and holing defense spending simply at 2011 levels and passing this amendment would help show everybody that we are really serious about fixing this difficulty. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is rk niced for five minutes. mr. dicks: this amendment follows the lee and garamendi amendment in out canning $1.7 billion from the overseas contingency operation fund. i, myself, feel that we could be reducing our troop levels faster but i don't think we should take the money out at this point until we have a better understanding of the pace of the withdrawal. we know the president's plan is 10,000 this year and another

23,000 next year so there will be some savings in the overseas contingency account as those troops come home. but i think it's too early to make a decision on that. better luck to do it in conference where we can make a reasoned judgment and talk to the pentagon, talk to the congressional research service so we have a better idea of how much this will be. and i just feel that this is premature at this point to -- and the other two amendments were soundly defeated and i think the same thing -- the same fate will be here. i yield to the gentleman. >> just for clarify cage, the amendment only makes the change to the base spending, it does not change anything in fitele 9 or overseas contingencies in any way. it's just the base portion of the budget. mr. dicks: that's even worse. i would doubly oppose the gentleman's amendment on that part of it.

let's defeat this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: i rise in opposition to this amendment. i'm one of the original budget cutters in this congress. but i will not cut a defense budget to the point that it affects adversely our troops or to the effect that it adversely affects the country's readiness. an we could be getting close to that. secretary gates this year made his recommendation and it resulted in the president's budget request being $13 billion less than we had anticipated for national defense. in addition to that, this congress, this committee, recommended, and this congress will pass, sometime today or tomorrow, a bill that is $13 billion less than the president

requested. so we have cut and saved money everywhere we could without affecting readiness. and without affecting an adverse effect on our troop. if we start cutting too deep, and we were careful in the way we reduced this $9 billion, very careful. we don't want to see that we have to cancel training for returning troops. we don't want to have to cancel navy training exercises. we don't want to have to slow down or reduce air force flight training. we don't want to delay our cancel maintenance of aircraft, ships, and vehicles. we don't want to delay important safety and quality of life repairs to facilities an to military barracks because if we do those things, we are affecting our readiness.

training relates to readiness. training is a large part of the money in the base bill. the base bill chsm is what this amendment goes to. this amendment could be getting us very close to a dangerous situation where troops and readiness are affected. and there's just no way that i can even appear to support this amendment. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. no further speakers, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the yealt from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment you were in 71 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. bass of california. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. bass: thousands of private contracting defense firms, including some of the industry's biggest names such as dime corps, international, and halliburton subsidiary k.b.r. have been linked to trafficking relatedence dents. thousands of nationals from impoverished countries are leuered by the promise of good jobs but sometimes end up victims of scams that leave them virtual slaves with no way to return home or seek legal recourse. despite this, allegations against federal contractors engaged in illegal labor

practices ranging from contract workers smuggling to human trafficking in iraq and afghan -- and afghanistan continue to surface in the media. a recent article illustrates the need for this amendment. it highlights the story of two women from fee joe who thought they were going to good jobs in dubai but ended up recruits of the army of 7,000 people. they were asked to deliver resumes, hand over passports and had to pay $500 to a recruiting firm. they were leuered to iraq under false pretenses and told they would be making $700 a month. that was after they believed they were going to be making $3,800 a month, 10 times the normal salary this their home

country. what they didn't realize was they were contracted to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week. they were also victims of sexual harass. and assault. after complaining, they were sent off base for making trouble and held for a month while their passports and i.d. badges were confiscated by the subcontracting company. the company that hired them was initially reprimanded but still operates in fiji and still has a contract with the u.s. military. meanwhile, allegations against federal contractors engaged in commercial sex and labor exploitation continue. mr. chairman, i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from new york. the chair: the gentlelady from california must remain on her feet. >> i move to strike the last word and rise against this

amendment. -- and support this amendment. mrs. maloney: as part of the bipartisan caucus on traffic, i'm concerned that workers from south asia and africa are being trafficed to work on u.s. military bases an u.s. tax pay dollars are spent to unlawfully leuer and transport them to work in extreme conditions. it is army policy to oppose all activities associated with human trafficking. this must include the supply chain, that provides supplies to our service members defending our country. we must have trong oversight over our contracting system to ensure it is free from human rights abuses and this amendment works toward that end. i urge my colleagues to join us in fighting human trafficking and support -- in forth of -- support of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from california controls the time.

ms. bass: i yield to the gentleman from colorado. >> i would like to tell the gentleman i think this is an extremely important amendment and we will be glad to accept it. mr. dicks: we also accept the amendment and appreciate your work on the amendment. the chair: does the gentlelady yield back or yield to the gentleman from illinois. ms. bass: i yield to the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: i support this amendment and i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. bass: i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman from new jersey wish to speak

on this? mr. frelinghuysen: i do not. the chair: no further speakers, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. runnion of new jersey. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following section, none of the funds in this act may be used to procure transportation for a member of the armed forces who is traveling under ordered to -- orders to deploy to or return from an overseas under terms that allow the carrier to charge fees for checked baggage other than bags weighing more than 80 pounds or bags in excess of four per individual.

the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized on his amendment for five mins. mr. runyan: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my colleague from new york for his support on this amendment. mr. chairman, i rise today in support of the runyan-grimm amendment which seeks to address the exezz baggage fees being charged to service members deploying or returning from an overseas contingency operation. this was prouth to light in june when two soldiers were each charged $200 for checking two extra bags. they posted a youtube video titled "delta airlines welcomes soldiers home," expressing frustration for what they had experienced. after serving our country in theater in an 18-hour layover on their trip home, the warm welcome this group received was

a $2,800 out of pocket expense. this is unacceptable slap in the face. whether it was intentional or not. applying these charges to those headed to or returning from the fight is an insult to them and their service to our nation. my amendment would make none of these funds -- would make none of the funds available by this act to be used to pay any commercial air carrier if that airline charges excess bag badge feers in first four pieces of checked luggage that are 80 pounds or less. this amendment is a reasonable compromise whose primary purpose is taking care of our war fighters while not allowing the system to be abused. our soldiers, sailors, airmen and ma rips risk their lives to protect -- marines risk their lives to protect our freedoms that we enjoy. they take great personal sacrifices to defend our country. there's no doubt they should be provided with any reasonable accommodation while traveling on orders to or from theater of

operations. most importantly they should not have to endure personal financial hardship as a result of traveling to and from overseas contingency operations. $200 is a large amount of money to pay out-of-pocket especially for those who are enlisted. it shouldn't take a youtube video and bad publicity to convince any of us to do the right thing. with this amendment we are sending a very strong message that our war fighters are individuals who are serving our country and not for an addition to a profit margin. the amendment is endorsed by the v.f.w. and national guard association of america and i hope all my colleagues will stand with me in support of our soldiers, sailors, air men and marines by voting in favor of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida, for what purpose do you rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise to thank the gentleman for the hard work that he's done on this amendment, to associate myself

with his comments because i adepree with everything that he said strongly and i am happy to accept the amendment. i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? seeing no further people rising, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. sherman of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized on his amendment for five minutes. mr. sherman: i ask the clerk to read the amendment. the chair: the clerk will read the amendment. without objection, so ordered. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used in

contravention of the war powers resolution, 50 u.s.c. 1541. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sherman: i had the clerk read the amendment to show how short and simple it is. it simply says that none of the money appropriated in this bill can be used to violate the war powers resolution which is the law of the land found in title 50. the war powers resolution simply states that a president may not deploy our troops into hostilities or our military forces into hostilities for more than 60 days if the president does not have congressional authorization. and in the absence of such authorization the president has 30 days to withdraw. this is the exact same amendment that we considered three weeks ago on the milcon appropriations bill. at that time it got the support of 60% of the republicans and

61% of the democrats. and i hope that those who voted for the bill or the amendment three weeks ago would vote the same way today. i hope to be able to persuade a few who voted the other way last time. this amendment is important even if we weren't engaged in libya at all. because for the last several administrations presidents have been captured by the siren song of extremist lawyers who are part of the permanent executive branch. they tell the president that the president of the united states acting alone can deploy our troops into hostilities for unlimited duration, for any purpose and in any quantity, any assets can be deployed. we are told that there are no limits on the president's power as commander in chief. well, the war powers act says

otherwise and it is the law of the land. now, these extremist attorneys in the executive branch have gone a little further. they've added insult to injury by floating the idea that a resolution by nato, the arab league or the united nations can substitute for an authorization from both houses of congress. or they have said that briefing the leadership of congress is a substitute for enacting an authorization. but even the most extremist attorneys in the executive branch admit we have the power of the purse. and we can prevent the funds provided by this appropriations bill from being used to violate the war powers act. if we were to do otherwise we would be abdicating our own responsibility, for if congress appropriates funds knowing that they will be used to violate the law of the land, then we would be complicit in undermining

democracy and the rule of law here in the united states. now, we on this side admire the president of the united states. but even if you would grant this president unlimited power to deploy unlimited forces for unlimited duration, if you ignore the war powers act today you are granting that power to the next president and those of us who are in good health, we'll all live to see a president that we disagree with. and even if you agree with exactly what's happeninging in libya it is important -- what is happening in libya, it is important that we draw a line and say that the conduct of our foreign policy must be consistent with u.s. law. now, as a practical matter, this president has taken the extreme position that we are not engaged in hostilities in libya. so what will be the practical effect of this amendment? first i think he'll reconsider that decision because i think the lawyers behind it took

refuge in the belief that the war powers act was somehow not bining on the administration. with this amendment the war powers act is binding because we do have the constitutional right to limit the use of funds. furthermore, at a minimum this amendment would prevent the president from deploying regular ground forces to libya. now, i realize he doesn't intend to do that at this time. but clearly this president could not claim that armored divisions deployed in a war zone were not engaged in hostilities. so the minimum practical effect of this amendment is to limit presidential power to what is going on now and not to introducing major combat operations. now, i support a limited effort to bring democracy and the rule of law on the people of libya. that's not what this amendment is about. this amendment is about democracy and the rule of law

here in the united states. i think that if we pass this amendment and if we can get the senate to do likewise that the president will come to congress and seek an authorization for what is going on in labia and at that time -- libya and at that time congress will be able to influence our policy. i think we would insist on a legal limitation to limit our efforts to just air forces and perhaps ground rescue operations. i believe that we would insist that we have the right to review that policy every three or six months. i believe that we would insist that the $33 billion of gaddafi assets which have been frozen by the u.s. treasury be used to finance this operation. instead of american taxpayer dollars. and i believe that we would insist that the rebels in benghazi disassociate themselves from the al qaeda operatives in their midst and from the libyan islamic fighting group.

but we can't insist on anything if we accept the view of extremist attorneys in the executive branch who view congress as merely an advisory body. a review of the law and a review of the constitution indicates that congress has and should not be derelict in exercising a role in forming american foreign policy. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: thank you. the amendment prohibits the use of funds in this bill to breach the war powers act. however the proponents hope this language will compel the administration to change our response to the crisis in libya. i oppose the amendment on two different grounds. first, the language of the amendment cannot possibly deliver what the proponents claim. second, what the proponents hope to accomplish would harm the efforts of our allies working against our national interests and benefiting gaddafi.

the language can't deliver on the proponent's promises for two reasons. first, the amendment restricts the use of funds in the bill. but none of the $118.7 billion in the overseas contingency portion of the bill are designated for libya. second, the language merely requires compliance with the war powers act but the heart of the proponent's difference with the president is a matter of interpretation about what constitutes compliance. the amendment takes us no closer to a resolution of that difference. i would oppose the amendment even if the language could accomplish what the proponent's hope for can -- what the proponents hope for. it puts us on the wrong side of the history and arab spring. it would hinder the efforts of our allies, if not making nato's mission impossible and prolonging gaddafi's tenuous hold on power. to address the matter of libya, i believe the language, similar to the language introduced in the other body by senators kerry and mccain, is the appropriate

course of action at this time. this language preserves the understanding between the administration and congress, the u.s. ground forces are not appropriate at this time and it requires regular and detailed reports on the administration to the congress. now, i must say that i too agree that the president would always be better served as president bush did and president clinton to come to congress to get approval of their authorization. but to unilaterally overturn an effort that includes nato, the arab league and the united nations, saying that this horrific act would take place against the people of libya, is just i think a big mistake. and it would undermine u.s. foreign policy that's been consistent since 1949 when nato was established. so i urge a no vote on this

amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. dicks: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: no further speakers. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. sherman: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise in support of my amendment which is at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. at the end of the bill before the short title add the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to provide assistance to pakistan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. rohrabacher: mr. chairman, again i rise in support of my amendment which stake states, as you have just heard, no funds in this bill may go to pakistan.

pakistan is a country on which we have spent billions and billions of dollars. we've given them $18 billion just since 9/11. not to mention the many billions of dollars we gave them during the cold war. what is all that spending achieved for the people of the united states? pakistan is now the best friend to america's worst enemies. radical islam and, yes, an emerging and belligerent china. wake up, america. was anyone really surprised to find osama bin laden was living in a luxurious mansion in plain view in a military-dominated pakistani city? let me admit that i was even surprised that the pakistani government was so bold, so openly in contempt of the people of the united states as to arrest five of its citizens for helping us bring to justice osama bin laden, that radical

terrorist feend, whose leadership led to the slaughter of 3,000 americans on 9/11. the pakistan intelligence service, the i.s.i., is today, as it always has been, a friend to radical islam and an enemy of western democracy. with the american acquiescence and saudi financeing, the pakistani government created the taliban as islamabad's van guard for the conquest of afghanistan. in the process they set in place a fundamentalist antiwestern radical terrorist state. let's note that even after 9/11, after 3,000 of our citizens had been slaughtered, the i.s.i. continued to covertly support radical islamic terrorists and they are still engaged in such hostile acts, even as american lives are being lost even today. in 2010 the london school of

economics published a report that found agents of the i.s.i., this is 2010, long after 9/11, were, quote, funding and training the afghan taliban, end of quote. and the top things are -- to top this off, there is substantial reporting that has been done that suggests that pakistani diplomats are lobbying the afghanistan government -- afghan government leaders suggesting that they dump the united states and turn to china for a partnership and re-- in reconstruction. this isn't shame on them, this is shame on us. washington may be able to coerce and bribe islamabad into doing us a favor now and then, but it is time to face reality. the goals and values of the united states and pakistan are fundamentally at odds. wake up, america. this bill would provide for another $1 billion to pakistan, the pakistani government and pakistan, they are not our

friends. why are we borrowing money from china to give to a government that has betrayed us time and time again? therefore i urge adoption of my amendment to eliminate any funding in this appropriations bill from going to pakistan and i reserve the balance of my time. i yield back the blaps of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: the bill includes approximately $2.4 billion for the pakistani military. $1.1 billion is for the pakistani counterinsurgency fund and approximately $1.3 billion is for other funds. coalition support funds are used to reimburse the pakistani

military for operations which generally support u.s. counterterrorism objectives. in the wake of osama bin laden's killing by u.s. special forces, serious questions have arisen about pakistan's reliability as a strategic partner. i agree with the gentleman from california that this has raised serious questions here in the united states about the reliability of our -- of one of our partners and also there's questions about the -- about president karzai in afghanistan as well. the relationship with pakistan has always been difficult. reminds me a great deal of -- during world war ii -- of our relationship with the soviet union and russia. that was a difficult relationship but it was essential at that time and this is essential at this one. let me tippish my statement and

i'll yield. the pakistanis have allocated a significant part of their forces within their own borders to this mission, which we immediate to do more of on the fallly administered tribal areas and in queta where the afghanistan ball leadership exists. and we immediate them will let us bring our special forces into pakistan. a complete withdrawal of u.s. assistance would likely polarize pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti--american risks within their military and government generally. aggravating this divide would be counterproductive to u.s. objectives in the region. in addition to the counterterrorism activity, the fact of pakistan's nuclear weapons capability provides ample reason for the united states to continue positive engagement. i urge my colleagues to -- i yield to the gentleman from california.

>> does any of the money we have in this bill going to end up financing the i.s.i.? will any of that money end up in the hands of the i.s.i.? mr. dicks: i cannot say for certain. i don't think there's anything in this bill that i know of, any provision that vidse funding directly to the i.s.: -- that provides funding directly to the i.s.i. as the gentleman knows, there are other avenues in the intelligence world where there may be some assistance but i don't know of anything specifically in this bill -- mr. rohrabacher: would it be accurate -- mr. dicks: i have as much trouble with them as you do. i don't think we have anything specific hi in the bill that funds them. mr. rohrabacher: is there any lang wam in the bill that would prevent the money in this bill from going to the i.s.i.? mr. rohrabacher: --

mr. dicks: no, i don't think there's any prohibition in this bill. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. mr. dicks: thank you and i yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. dicks: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further amendments -- further action on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent by which amendment number 61 was adopted be vacated an the chair put the question de novo. is there objection? mr. dicks: i have no objection. the chair: if no objection, the

earlier voice vote is vacated. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: earment number 61, printed in the congressional record offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. dicks: i request a recorded vote on this measure. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the yealt from north carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman rise in mr. bishop: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i ask mr. young if he would enter into a colloquy about this program. mr. young: i would.

mr. bishop: the military has talked about discontinuing this weapons system and they have not discussed with the congress any replacement to keep this system working. would the chairman agree it is vitally important that the air force undertake a smart closeout of this system, to preserve the essential tools, work force, suppliers, needed to continue and support the readiness of minuteman 3 motors through their current operational lifestyle through at least 2030. mr. young: would the gentleman yield? mr. bishop: i yield. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for bringing this to

our attention. we do share his concern the solid rocket motor industrial base. we understand the air force is considering their options an we intend that they use closeout funding from the minuteman 3 mod line in a wise manner. we believe that they should seriously consider a smart closeout as the gentleman from utah described. they should also consider incorporating the essential elements from the minuteman 3 production line into existing production lines for other defense solid rocket booster programs in order to preserve both military capabilities and to ensure the best use of taxpayer funds. mr. bishop: do you also agree that minuteman 3 funds provided in this bill may only be used to support the minuteman 3 system and no funds have been

requested or provided to begin a new program for a future currently unauthorized minuteman 3 follow-on capability? i yield. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would respond that the purpose of the funding we provided for the modification program is to support the operational capability of the minuteman 3 -- minuteman through 2030. this includes $34 million for close out of the program. development of any follow-on capability is years away and the gentleman is correct. a new start system would require authorization and appropriation by the congress which the air force has not requested and we have not provided. we intend to have funds used in a manner that preserves the industrial base and does not diminish our future stra teemic

capabilities. i commend the gentleman for his leadership in this area an look forward to working with him further on this issue. mr. bishop: reclaiming my time, i thank the chairman for his kindness an his answers and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the deffing. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: -- mr. dicks: i reserve a point of order on this amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. gohmert of texas at the end of the bill before she short title, add the following, section, none of the funds in this may be used in any manner to support military operation in libya or in libya's air

space. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognize for five minutes on his ealt. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. we have a couple of amendments we have already voted on. i was reviewing whether or not to withdraw my amendment but my concern comes on review of mr. cole, of oklahoma, a dear friend, and the amendment that passed that he provided. his amendment says that no funds in the act may be used for supporting military activities, any group or individual not part of a country's armed forces system of this still could be used to supplement another country's armed forces through nato or through the u.n. and we have here a case where people on both sides recognize that the president moved forward, put

our people and our military in harm's way, to go after a man who until march 1 was recognized by the united nations as being a leader. in human rights. in fact, had elected him in 2003 to be the chairman of the human rights commission of the u.n. so we also know from our offices -- office's inquiry of you are the military that we comprise 65% of nato's military so it is not comforting to think that this president, who has already gone beyond seizing on loopholes and is just ignoring laws, to do what he wants, because the arab league asked him, not congress, not

the population of the united states, but the arab league and some in nato, but it has not been established and there are no indications it will be established that the people who are going to replace gaddafi will be better for us, for our national security, for our allies like israel, and so if it's not good for this country's national security, if it is as true what the gentleman that the president recently awarded a medal of honor, secretary of gates, had said, we have no national security interest in libya. then we should not be committing our military in that direction. so even though the u.n. may support action in libya, and

they may buy into this arab spring, although we're already seeing that iran is excited because it looks like they're going to get additional puppets. we have found out this week that the leader of iraq, maliki, is giving in to the request of the leader of iran, go against his promise to us and to the people of camp ashraf, go against his promise to the people there that they will be safe and secure and now he's saying he'll disband the camp. it is time to put america's national security and national interests first and not some whim of some president because someone outside the u.s. asked him. we know the muslim brotherhood, despite what some say, has been supporting terrorism. the evidence was clear in the

old foundation trial. we know that this administration has bent over backwards to appease such folks. and it's time for an amendment that makes very clear, which this one does, mr. president, it doesn't matter whether you're going to try to use our military to through they toe, our military through the u.n., our military head up for reconnaissance, rescue, it doesn't matter, you're not going to use the. for those who argue the war powers is constitutional or it's unconstitutional, i would humbly submit it does not matter. even though the war powers act was passed as a cush against the president at the time, it is actually a gift to a president because this body has the power of the purse to cut off funding at any time it so desires and the war powers gave him a gift and said, look, we'll give you days and days an days to come make your case before we cut you off.

that's a gift, this president has shoved it back down our throats and said, i don't care what you think and it's time to use the constitutional powers of this body and say, enough. i yield back my time and hope that people will vote for this amendment. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, i find it a little difficult to listen to the arguments about the war powers act, because i agree with those arguments. i agree that the president first of all i think in 1973 the congress did give the president a gift of power not intended by the constitution. the constitution is very clear. it intends that a war making decisions would be made in conjunction with the commander in chief and the congress. not the commander in chief by

himself or herself. and the congress alone. not working together has been happening lately. there hasn't been a real declaration of war under the constitution since world war ii. we have fought in a lot of wars, and we have wounded a lot of our kids. that's not the argument, though. i think congress has a serious responsibility to review the war powers act and to making what we think it ought to be and that is a partnership and relationship between congress, the legislative branch and the executive branch. but these amendments, these amendments, you hear these strong arguments about the war powers act and hear these strong arguments about the separation of powers, the amendments don't really get the

job done. if you want to cut off all funding for any activity in libya you would have to introduce a separate resolution that would simply say no funds appropriated here or anywhere else can be used in the libya operation. in this particular bill that we're dealing with today, there's no money here for libya, and the president has made it very clear that he's not going to use any funds from the f.y. 2012 money for libya. we'll see if that changes, but we have that in writing. if this amendment should be agreed to, here's what we would not be able to do. we're already there, we're already in the area, we're already flying missions. we could not fly research and rescue missions for a downed pilot. we could not do i.s.i.,

intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. we could not do aerial refueling for our coalition partners. we could not even be part of operational planning under this amendment. as much as i agree with what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, i can't support this amendment because of the effect it really has. if it could amend the war powers act, make the president be a partner with congress, i say, amen, let's do it quick. i think congress ought to do that and i think we ought to be serious about doing that, but on this particular amendment i have to oppose this amendment because this is what we're dealing with and not the emotional discussions about the war powers act. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i do not insist on my point of order, by the way. the chair: the reservation is withdrawn.

for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. dicks: to rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: the people of libya asked for our help. the nato-led mission to defeat gaddafi and to protect the people of libya was taken in concert with the broad coalition of nations including the arab league and it followed a resolution adopted in the united nations security council authorizing all necessary measures. the amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. i believe this could materially harm our relationship with our nato allies from whom we will undoubtedly require support in the future and our nato alliance has been a vital and successful part of foreign policy dating back to its formation in 1949. i do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and the cost of u.s. military forces engaged in the libya operation, but i would point out the administration did send up a detailed document that

shows the money that's been spent thus far and what will be spent through the end of this fiscal year. we should let the mission with our nato allies continue so we can replace gaddafi and protect the libyan people. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. i would just remind everyone that in 1986 president reagan authorized a military strike following the bombings in berlin, a definitive coup for gaddafi's involvement in other terrorism activities. at the time president reagan publicly denounced gaddafi, the mad dog of the middle east who espoused the world of gold revolution. mr. speaker, i can only wonder what ronald reagan would say today about those who would propose immediate withdrawal of u.s. assistance to the broad coalition of nations attempting to finish the job that president ronald reagan

started. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. is there further discussion? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. so many as in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. engel of new york. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following -- section. none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of defense to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles for any executive fleet or foreign agency's fleet inventory except in accordance with presidential

memorandum federal fleet performance dated may 24, 2007. -- 2011. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. engel: president obama issued a memorandum on federal fleet performance which requires all new light duty vehicles in the federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles such as hybrid, electric, natural gas or biofuel by december 31, 2015. my amendment would prohibit funds in the defense appropriations bill as being used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles except in accord with the president's memorandum. i have introduced similar amendments to the homeland security appropriations bill and the agriculture appropriations bill and intend to do it with other appropriations bills. both were accepted by the majority and passed by voice vote. our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $600 billion per year to

hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing costs, but america doesn't need to be dependent on foreign sources of oil for transportation fuel. alternative technologies exist today that would implement it broadly -- if implemented broadly would require any alternative fuel to be used in america's automotive fleet. the federal government has the largest light duty vehicles. there were over 660,000 in the federal fleet with almost 197,000 being used by the department of defense. by supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies in our federal fleet, we'll encourage development of domestic energy resources, including biomass, natural gas, coal, agricultural waste, hydrogen and renewable elect tricks. expanding the role these play in our transportation economy will help break the leverage of americans held by over foreign.

it will protect consumers by price spikes and shortages in the world oil markets. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment as both sides of the aisle have done in previous bills, and i want to mention on a similar note, i've worked in a bipartisan fashion with my colleagues, john shimkus, roscoe bartlett and steve israel to have -- introduce h.r. 5067. it would require all automobiles in 2014, 80% in 2016 and 95% in 2017 to be warranted to operate on nonpetroleum fuels in addition to or instead of petroleum-based fuels. compliance possibilities include the full array of existing text nolings, including flex fuel, natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, plug-in electric drive and a catch-all for new technologies. i mention it because it's similar to this, and i really believe that our energy policies can only be done in a

bipartisan basis. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. again, as we've done on all the other bills that i've introduced it as we work to break our dependence on foreign oil and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. is there further discussion on the amendment? for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i think the gentleman's amendment is a good amendment, and i think we've seen this on other bills and i'm happy to accept the amendment. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. young: i will yield. mr. dicks: i appreciate the gentleman's willingness to accept the amendment and i, too, think it's a good amendment and good idea. so i yield back to the gentleman. mr. young: i yield back my time. the chair: is there further discussion? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. so many as in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 89 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. neugebauer of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. neugebauer: i thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the b-1 bomber. this is a very simple amendment. basically it says it prevents any funds in this bill to be used to retire the b-1 bomber in the current fiscal year. currently, as you know about 163 planes are in our bomber fleet which is about 3% of our total fleet. currently we're going through an analysis of what our bomber fleet is going to look like in the future and part of that is from the stark treaty. what we feel like is appropriate is for us to not to look at reductions in the bomber fleet in a piecemeal

basis but look at it in a total picture once we see how many of the planes will not be needed for nuclear capability moving forward. the b-1 is kind of an interesting plane. a lot of people -- it doesn't get a lot of attention. what it does is works 24/7 and has in the theaters we are involved in for a number of years. in fact, it's been our number one bomber of choice for a number of years until recently was the only bomber seeing active duty. i am pleased to be supportive in this effort by mr. -- congressman thornberry who is vice chairman of the armed services committee as well as my colleague, mr. conaway, and at this time i ask unanimous consent to enter into conaway's statement. he had to go to another meeting. the chair: that request will be added to general leave. mr. neugebauer: i'd like to yield to a couple co-sponsors of this amendment, the gentlewoman from south dakota, ms. noem, for two minutes.

the chair: you can't yield time but you can yield to the gentlelady. mr. neugebauer: i yield to the gentlelady. ms. noem: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of this amendment that is offered by the gentleman from texas. the b-1 bomber is our workhorse of our long-range bomber fleet and has been flying missions over iraq and afghanistan for nearly a decade. more importantly, the b-1 bomber from the 28th bong wing at ellsworth air force base in my home state of south dakota was just carried out air strike operations in libya. in just under two days, ellsworth generated it with conventional weapons that was able to strike targets over halfway across the world. regardless of what one thinks about our involvement in libya, one thing that one cannot dispute is the b-1's capability to respond globally and its vital importance to our bomber fleet. mr. chair, with the next generation bomber development still a decade or more away, the administration's proposal

to retire six b-1's is shortsighted and it's premature. what's more, it can't be reversed. retired planes aren't moth balled and put away for a period of time. they're sent to the bone yard and they're used for parts. mr. chair, we propose that no b-1's be irreversibly retired this year because the future of our bomber and the b-1's proven track record in theater as our workhorse. i urge my colleagues to support a strong bomber fleet and defense. i ask them to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i yield to the distinguished chairman. mr. young: the gentlelady from south dakota just made the speech i was about to make so i will say it's a good amendment and i support it. >> i thank the chairman. mr. neugebauer: i urge my

colleagues to vote in favor of the neugebauer amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: the b-2 has been used in a number of places, and we had a multiyear purchase agreement for b-1's, we had a unanimous vote, i think it was very bipartisan, i say, you know, i agree with the gentleman, we don't have enough bombers. that's why i'm so strongly committed to the next generation bomber. but as has been pointed out, that's going to be several years away. we tried to add money this year to accelerate that because we do need a follow-on bomber. and so i --

>> would the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: i will yield. >> mr. neugebauer: i agree and the b-1, b-2 and b-52's, are important. we don't have a a replacement bomber in the works at this time. until we develop that, we need to be stratenal i think about what level we maintain our current fleet until we know what's going to replace it. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. dicks: we only have 20 stealthy bombers. that's what people don't understand. an the ability to penetrate china or the soviet union or wherever we might have to penetrate at some point, north korea, we'd be vulnerable with the b-52's and the bmbing-1's surface to air missiles. making sure that we get a high quality, celty airplane to follow the b-2 is a matter of

national importance. i yield back my time and support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman creeleds back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes visit. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> i request permission to enter into colloquy with ranking member dicks. mrs. lowey: i rise to address the ranking member of the house appropriations committee mr. decks and also the chair in a colloquy on the critical need to improve the retention and competitive compensation of the mental health professionals who can work with our wounded warriors, especially during the iraq and afghanistan military

men and women. since 2000, 123 service members have died by suicide. one in five currently suffer from post-traumatic stress or major depression. we must ensure that a -- that an adequate number of health professionals are available to treat our soldiers. mental health professionals must be retained by providing adequate pay and benefits that are available in the private sector. it is our duty an responsibility to the wounded warriors that we ensure the mental health services are secure and available when and where needed. i'm submitting for the record an article from "the army times" regarding the protions committee defense subcommittee meeting of april 6, quote, army surgeon general shoe milwaukee

whore stressed severe lack of mental hell professionals in the military and his concern about retention in the rural areas. his quote also states, congress has been pressing the military health system to add more psychiatric doctors, nurses and social workers for years. that has prompted the services to add about 1,500 full-time mental health professionals since 2006. a 70% increase he further says, but demand has continued to outpace the growth. active duty troops an their families were referred to offbase civilian mental health care professionals nearly four million times. four million times. in 2009. roughly double the number of offbase referrals in 2006. the military data shows. the dramatic increase in military suicides in the past several years has added surgetcy -- urgency to crongregsal concern. at the hearing, all three

surgeon generals told lawmakers about attempts to improve train, recruiting an retention of mental health professionals. it was suggested that military training may be particularly important. because some doctors have trouble understanding the troops' mindsets. i'm also submitting for the record a witness statement of july 14, 2011, from the subcommittee of oversight an investigation for rhett rans affairs where the deputy direct cror of veterans affairs yay cob gaud expressed the challenges of hiring and training mental health professionals. our service members should not have to wait one more tai for the help they deserve. as co-chair of the congressional mental health caucus, i have met with many key leaders to learn what the key issues are.

i repeatedly have been informed that they have been woefully inadequate numbers of mental health professionals available to care for men and women. congress has a responsibility to see that our soldiers and veterans have the resources for quality care. because this quality of care is dependent on the quantity of may have i don't recall health specialists trained in war, we must successfully recruit the men and women who fight to ensure our precious daily freedoms. mrs. napolitano: this provides for the defense health programs and military family programs with $125 million going toward research of traumatic brain injury and psychological health treatment. hopefully to also include hyperbaric treatment resedge. we must insist on accountability that adequately trained may have i don't recall health professionals are on hand when and where needed. i'd like to work with the

ranking member to obtain if the department of defense a detailed outline on their efforts for each military service, army, air force, navy, marines, etc., to recruit, retain and formulate the competitive salaries and benefits that will keep may have i don't recall health specialists serving our men and women who have fwitch so much to protect our freedoms. we place them in harm's way, it is our duty and obligation to ensure that best care is given to them. i yield to the ranking member, mr. dicks. mr. dicks: i will work with the gentlelady on the defense department's plan to ensure adequate mental health services. i ask for one minute. unanimous consent. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one more minute. mrs. napolitano: i would point out that the chairman of the committee, mr. young, an his wife, beverly, have been some of the strongest advocates for our wounded warriors and has

led the fight in our committee to increase funding for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder system of our committee has been very committed to this. it's one of our highest priorities. mrs. napolitano: i thank mr. dicks and the ranking member for working with me on this critical issue and look forward to working soon enough on this. i wreeled back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the chair: -- the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. insert the follow, none of the funds may be expend for assistance to the following entities, one the government of iran, two, hamas, three, hezbollah, four, the muslim brotherhood.

the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five mins on his amendment. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairmanism rides in support of my amendment. ski for your support of my limiting amendment that would prohibit any military expenditure that would assist any enity that has a policy of helping the -- that has a policy for the destrub of the sate of israel. most prominent, of course is iran. just last month, iranian president ahmadinejad reiterated his nation's policy calling for the complete elimination of israel. it is not just formally recognized states we need to be concerned about. history has shown that entities we consider terrorist fringe groups sometimes through force, manipulation and popular vote take over the state apparatus. this happened in the gaza trip when hamas, the islamic resistance movement, won a

plurality in the 2006 election. the united states and israel classify hamas as a terrorist organization but the united nations does not. the hamas charter of 1988 states that israel will exist and continue to exist until islam will obliterate it, just as it has obliterated others before it. this mirrors the iranian policy in that the reason for designing this regime is questioned and this regime is on its way to anilings. in the last budget, u.s. military in egypt told us over $1.3 billion annually in funding, referred to as foreign military financing. currently, questions exist about the muslim brotherhood, a key player in eyipt, an potentially in egypt. it is quite possible that extremist deprupes who seek the destruction of israel are taking over state operations in

egypt and part of lib yasm time will tell my amendment will ensure we do not cruise our money and military assistance to help any entity that will not recognize the right of israel to exist and to exist peacefully. that includes the muslim brotherhood in egypt. no other nation on earth except israel has had to face systematic, ideological and po ten -- persistent existential threats. my amendment would prohibit military aid to any nation, state or entity that espouses a policy that refuses to recognize israel's right to peacefully exist. with the prospect of not receiving our money an assistance, the new egyptian regime may take and will -- will take a more respectable approach to israel. in this sense, my amendment takes a careless approach. i appreciate your support on my amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for phi minutes. mr. young: i rise to support the gentleman's amendment. i also want to support his reasons for offering this amendment. i think they are very well taken the amendment is a good amendment. i strongly support it and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes visit. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? mr. welch: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman will specify which amendment. mr. welch: commanders emergency response program. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. welch of vermont, at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, not more than $200 million of the funds provided by title 9 under the

heading operation and maintenance, army, may be available for the commanders' emergency response program and and the amount otherwise provided under such heading is reduced by $200 million. the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for five minutes. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. one of the major decision this is congress has to make and for which we need a recommendation from the appropriations committee for the defense subcommittee is whether nation building is a wise strategy, a sustainable strategy, an an affordable strategy and effective strategy in afghanistan. we had a debate on that policy. there was a bipartisan vote, 204 members, suggesting it was time to call into question the wisdom, sustainability andesquiveness of nation building. one of the things that we have provided to our commanders in order for them to be able to do hearts and minds civic projects, roads, bridges,

schools, is a $400 million fund that they can use completely at their discretion. now this sounds like a good idea. if you're going to ask the military to win hearts and minds, not just use military power to fight battles, then a discretionary fund can seemingly make some sense. the question, though, is upon review, it turns out that these roads, these bridges, these canals, almost the moment they are turned over to the afghan authorities, fall into disrepair, disuse and neglect. it's not surprising. number one, there's very little local government infrastructure in afghanistan. the fact that we build a road or a school doesn't mean there's a government or authority to maintain it. so we build something, the moment we turn the keys over it falls into disuse and disrepair.

second, the expense of doing this is enormous. you know, it may make sense to to these civic projects that do create some good will, but to do them, mr. speaker, in a middle of a shooting war or is it better to do it before or after the war when you have a chance to -- for this implementation to occur? third, there's an immense amount of ripping off of money from the american taxpayer. it goes -- it gets lost, it gets picked up. it's too rampant in afghanistan. so according to a report in "the washington post," and, mr. speaker, i will be asking you to submit "the washington post" in the record, half of this money, minimum of $400 million, has gone missing. it's wasted and it's coming out of our taxpayer pockets. our amendment, my amendment would cut in half the $400 million, reduce it to $00 million, basically taking away that $200 million that's being

utterly wasted. so this is a commonsense practical way to save money by stopping a policy that may be good in theory but in practice is a failure. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: mr. speaker, i move to oppose the gentleman's amendment for a number of reasons. i think he's made some good points and certainly we want accountability to apply to this program as much as we want it to apply to anything. however, this is the same funding level as last year. the request was $425 million, and our commanders in the field are telling us that that is even not high enough. so what we're doing with this amendment is actually cutting a level funding item from last year, cutting it in half.

now, what does the money do, the commander's emergency response program money? let's say an i.e.d. explodes or maybe there's a bomb that blows up a storefront in the middle of the street. a commander can go in that and hire local labor to clear out the entrance to that small business or whatever it is and get it done quickly without having to put u.s. army personnel in danger to do it and can do it quickly and effectively and, therefore, leave our soldiers in the field, leave our soldiers where they can be most effective with their time and their training and it does promote some good will on the streets with the people. and, you know, it's been said, well, all you're doing is renting a friend and we are not going to be the first army in a

war to rent friends. it does create some long-term good will and does have an economic benefit of it. but the idea is to give the commander on the street some flexibility so that they can get the job done as the jobs arrive and get it done quickly and turn it around so cerp money has been an effective tool and it's enormously popular with the commanders on the ground. i believe one of the problems we have in afghanistan, one of the problems we always had is too many decisions are being made not only on the street, at the pentagon, and not in baghdad, not in kabul, not in kandahar where the commanders are closest to the war front. so for these reasons, mr. chairman, i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from vermont. so many as in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. kingston: mr. chairman, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is ordered. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentleman from vermont will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 30 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. flores of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. flores: mr. chairman, i rise to offer my amendment which would address another misguided federal regulation. section 526, the energy

independence and security act, prohibits federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of alternative fuels unless their life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or equal to a conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. simply stated, my amendment would stop the government from enforcing this ban on the department of defense. the initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle a defense department's plan to buy and development coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet fuel. this section was based on the opinion of environmentists that coal-based jet fuel produces more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum. i submitted this amendment to the milcon and ag bill and they passed both times. my friend, mr. conaway, had similar language added to the defense appropriations bill.

we must ensure that our military becomes more energy independent and that it can effectively and efficiently rely on more domestic and more stable sources of fuel. our nation's military should not study fuel emissions when there's a simple fix. not restricting their fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, policies and regulations like section 526. in light of increasing competition with other countries for energy and fuel resources and continued volatility and instability in the middle east, it's more important than ever for our country to become more energy independent and to further develop and produce our domestic energy resources. placing limits on federal agencies, particularly the defense department's fuel choices, is an unacceptable precedent to set in regard to america's energy policy and independence. on july 9, 2008, the pentagon in a letter to senator james inhofe, stated, and i quote, such a decision would cause

significant harm to the readiness of the armed forces because these fuels may be widely used and particularly important in certain geographic areas. in summary, not only policies created a burden to american families and businesses but they cause significant harm and unreadiness to the armed forces, end quote. section 526 makes our nation more dependent on middle east oil. stopping 526 would promote american energy, improve the american economy and create american jobs. to everyone watching these proceedings today, i would say this -- following my remarks, you will hear speakers from the other side of the aisle make several claims regarding the merits of section 526. when you hear these claims, please remember the following facts about section 526 -- it increases our reliance on middle eastern oil, it hurts our military readiness and our national security, it prevents the use of safe, clean and efficient north american oil and gas, it increases the cost

of american food and energy, it hurts american jobs and the american economy. i urge my colleagues to support passage of this commonsense amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i rise today in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: the department of defense alone is the largest single energy consumer in the world. its leadership in this arena is critical to any credible approach to dealing with energy independence issues. section 526 provides an opportunity for the federal government to play a substantial role in spurring the innovation needed to produce alternative fuels which will not further exacerbate global climate change. this provision has spurred development of advanced biofuels. these fuels are being successfully tested and proven today on u.s. navy jets at supersonic speeds.

it's a testament to american ingenuity. unfortunately section 526 is under assault by those who disagree with advanced biofuels production. they'd like us to continue our dependence on the fuels of the past. that's the wrong path to take. it's unsustainable, it won't lead to the energy security we need. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i have -- i join my colleague in asking to exempt the department of defense from section 526. mr. conaway: it was to placate some notion that it would have some impact on global warming. it's wrong to require the department of defense in these times where every single dollar is scarce to require them to spend extra money beyond what

they would normally spend for fuel for their planes. this amendment would also allow the continued development of coal-to-liquid jet fuel which would make this country much less dependent on foreign oil in terms of powering our jets and other engines. 526 does not belong in the department of defense spending bill because those dollars are scarce. they're going to get scarcer. and to require the department of defense to spend more money than they otherwise would spend on energy is bad policy. so i rise in support of my colleague's amendment and urge the adoption of his amendment should this come to vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i support the gentleman's amendment but i do want to understand one thing in terms of what it does to the military option of purchasing

domestic or even north american fuel. and the reason i say that, as i understand the department of defense has three strategies in terms of energy or using less energy. number one is to increase the fight and, two, along with that, increase the fight, decrease the fuel. number three is increase the capacity. and then number two -- and i'm going to go there for a reason -- is to increase the fuel options. the choices to diversify the fuel sources. it appears to me that 526 has inadvertently eliminated some of the options. i'd like to yield to my friend to explain that a further specifically as it talks about domestic oil. mr. flores: thank you. it's important to know much of the oil that we import from the oil sands in canada winds up being blended in several refined fuels throughout the

united states. so if you took a literal reading of section 526, theoretically the military could not use any of those fuels since the oil sands as a source is considered to be banned by section 526. the oil from canada, from the oil sands, is stable, north american oil and gas and it is in large part produced by americans in creating american jobs. and section 526 would cut off this safe, friendly, stable source of fuel to this country. and my amendment does nothing to restrict the military from looking at all alternative sources of fuel. it allows them to go with biofuels, whatever alternative energy sources they need. it just takes away burdensome restrictions that are based on environmental theories that are not proven. i yield back. mr. kingston: what i'm concerned about 837 million barrels of oil produced every

day, only controlling 3% of that, yet consuming 25%, wherever we can use a friendly source of fuel, it's something that we need to keep open as an option. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? mr. welch: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. welch of vermont. at the end of the bill before the short title add the following -- section. none of the funds made available in this act may be used for tax collection purposes by the afghan ministry of finance. the chair: the gentleman from vermont -- the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i reserve a point mr. kingston: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's